PAREED PILLAY, C.J.

Complaint in S.T. 2 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Alappuza is the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P. 16 of 1994. Revision petitioners in Crl. R.P. 1108 of 1994 are accused 1 and 2 in the same case.

2. For the sake of convenience the position of the parties as it stood in the trial Court is followed in the discussions here-under.

3. Petitioner filed the complaint against accused 1 and 2 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate found accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/ - each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl. A. 141 of 1993. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused 1 and 2 have, filed Crl. R.P. 1108 of 1994, whereas the complainant filed Crl. R.P. 16 of 1994 on the ground that the mandatory and statutory principles enunciated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in awarding the sentence was not followed by the Magistrate.

4.